Could a trump Presidency really pave the road to progressive
legislation? This may sound like a crazy notion, and it is counterintuitive.
But please keep an open mind. To make informed decisions, one must look at
every topic from multiple angles. Many of these angles, however, are often
overlooked by the individual. In order to have a WHOLE outlook [on current events etc.] that is GREATER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS (SYNERGY), people must have open-minded discussions to share ideas.
Synergy is what empowers the human race. It used to empower people at the
bottom, but those at the top have used synergy to trick the rest of us into
thinking that this is a bad thing. So how could a Trump Presidency actually
facilitate a progressive agenda?

Whether Clinton or Trump wins this November (assuming it's
one of them), it's safe to say that there will be a knee-jerk reaction in the
next two Congressional Elections (2018 & 2020). So if Trump gets elected,
it will be much easier to get progressives into Congress, and there could even
be a domino effect in local elections. Keep in mind that real change to fix this
country needs to come from the bottom, up. Because of the backlash that would
likely follow a Trump Presidency, it's well within reason that the next President
(elected in 2020) would be a progressive. Then, there would be a minimum of two
years to make some real progressive changes to this country's legislation, and it
would be quite possible to implement the Real Deal (see article: The Real Deal). On the other hand, if
Hillary gets elected, the country will most likely turn in favor of the
Republicans.

The only reason Hillary Clinton reversed her position on the
TPP was to get Bernie Sanders' endorsement. He in turn had to endorse her
because he's a politician, not a rock star. Bernie is still in Congress, and he
has to conform a little or he loses his ability to negotiate. Plus, he probably
wants the Democratic Party to be more progressive again. If Clinton is able to
win this election, especially with a landslide victory, the progressive
movement would most likely take two steps back. After all the hard work and the
recent step forward, it would be a travesty to let that happen.

Another issue to consider is the fact that there is a
vacancy in the Supreme Court. But does it really matter if the Senate elects a
'liberal' or 'conservative' Justice? Let us not be short-sighted about the
issue. Yes, a Supreme Court Justice is a particularly important position within
our Judicial System. But how important are the labels 'conservative' and
'liberal?' Regardless of what politicians say in front of the camera, the vast
majority of Democrats and Republicans
subscribe to the Third Way, which is economically conservative and socially
liberal (liberal enough to keep the masses from rebelling). Citizens United v. FEC and Obergefell v. Hodges are two of the most
influential Supreme Court rulings in recent times. Citizens United is an economically conservative Supreme Court
ruling that equates money with free speech, which significantly contributes to
the current level of corruption within Washington. Meanwhile, Obergefell, the Supreme Court ruling
that guarantees the right of marriage to same-sex couples, is socially liberal.
And surprisingly, Obergefell was enacted
with a 'conservative majority' of Justices. The Third Way guideline is by no
means absolute, and there are definitely exceptions to the rule. But the
Justices don't always have the public's best interest in mind, especially when
it comes to economic issues. Congress isn't any better, and the anti-labor
movement proposed by Barry Goldwater in the '60s has been supported by every President
from 1981 to the present (Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama).

If progressives vote for a third party candidate, which
would likely allow for the election of Donald Trump, they would send a very powerful
message to the DNC. If candidates are chosen autocratically, the 'Democrats'
will permanently lose the progressive vote. Casting a ballot in this manner should
not be viewed as throwing away one's vote, especially if there's a statement
being made. Perhaps electing a Democrat or Republican should be viewed as
throwing away one's vote. Politicians should have to earn votes, and neither of
the two major candidates have done so. Also, if people always choose the lesser
of two evils, then evil will always be their only option. How many people
wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders in the primaries, but they were afraid to because
of their party loyalty and the fear of making Hillary look bad? And why are so
many people loyal to a political party that does not reciprocate their loyalty?
Well, the DNC and Hillary's campaign actually denigrated her on their own, and
the Democrats might lose this election because of it.

When people make comments like, "We're stuck in a two-party
system," the proper response should be, "Tell that to the Whigs." For most of
the Antebellum Period (before the Civil War), there were two main political
parties, the Democrats and the Whigs. Ignoring the will of the people had
become bipartisan, and the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party as a
result. The Whigs went the way of the dodo, and perhaps it's time for one of the
two major parties to do the same. Donald Trump tapped into something with his
opposition to the TPP (not all of his
supporters are bigots). So don't be surprised if the Republicans investigate
whether or not it's worthwhile to oppose free trade agreements and create a
more progressive platform in general.

Moreover, the Democratic Party seems to be fracturing, in
part, because of the Guccifer 2.0 leaks. Exposing the Democratic Party's deceit
is a good thing, not a threat to national security. The government, and
likewise the political parties, need more transparency. The DNC falsely claims
that Guccifer 2.0 must be affiliated with the Russian government because a lone
hacker could never get past the DNC's firewall. But the Bernie Sanders team
breached the firewall BY ACCIDENT and
reported it to the DNC. The DNC's response was to punish Team Bernie by
withholding crucial voter data at a critical point in the primary campaign. The
fact that the DNC blames Russia specifically is not coincidental. In a time
when socialism is regaining favor amongst the American people, the clergy is
restoring the scapegoat of Cold War paranoia.

Trite as it may be, "We can't trust Trump with the nuclear
codes," has become a popular cliche'. It's actually a quadrennial saying that is
constantly repeated by loyal Democrats. Replace Trump's name with George W
Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, and there should be a sensation of de'j- vu. It
is unfortunate that so many Americans have been manipulated this way because
they are unaware of the National Command Authority and the chain of command
required to authorize a nuclear attack. Yes, Trump has made some terrible
statements, but he never said that he wants to use nuclear weapons. He did say
that he doesn't want to take the cards off the table, but is Trump actually
considering the use of nuclear weapons? From the view point of a progressive
that frequently challenges conservatives to debates, all of the irrational
things Trump says are completely unoriginal. Even blaming the foundation of
ISIS on Obama is nothing new. He's pandering for votes, not laying out a real
Presidential strategy.

Trump's politically incorrect rhetoric would be an
embarrassment for the country, but it's highly unlikely that it would start a
serious conflict. Although Trump's words are being used to recruit terrorists, the
same can be said for almost everything relating to America and the West. The root
causes of radical Islamic terrorism are in fact the oil industry coups, the
union of government and religion in the Middle East, and the increased competition
for diminishing resources. Meanwhile, Hillary's proposal for no-fly zones in
Syria COULD ACTUALLY CAUSE WORLD WAR III.
Oh well, at least global warming will no longer be a concern when the nuclear
winter comes.

Sometimes it's necessary to hit rock bottom in order to turn
over a new leaf. With a Trump Presidency, the road ahead will be bumpy for a few
years, and things will probably get worse before they get better. But is there a
path for America's future that doesn't get bumpier along the way? Try not to
get discouraged, and never give up. Believe it or not, the Robber-Baron Era that
followed the Civil War was actually much worse than the status quo. But because
determined people organized, the Labor Movement was able to temporarily
overthrow the capitalist oligarchy, which led to the most affluent period in
human history THUS FAR. There is
light at the end of the tunnel. People just need to be patient, understanding,
and perceptive, and they must organize and work hard to fix this country from
the bottom, up.

*I would like to officially endorse Jill Stein, the Green
Party's nominee for Presidential candidacy.

"In Bottom-Up, Rob Kall offers important insights on why our society is in such disarray and what we must do to change it. He demonstrates how "top down" thinking is what has produced our current mess, and how bottom up thinking is much more efficient for solving problems and producing change. Rob shows how lasting change must come from the people themselves and not from the leaders. This was as true in the days of the Magna Carta as it was for the Bill of Rights as it was for the Union movement that first gave workers' rights and protection in this country, as it is today. Indigenous elders have told me, "if you want to change the world, start talking and keep talking." Rob is doing this with this book and with his OpEdNews, and he is making a difference. I recommend this book to all who wish to see lasting, human-friendly, compassionate change that will sustain humanity is this crazy world of today."

Lewis Mehl-Madrona, MD, author of the Coyote trilogy
that discusses healing practices from Lakota, Cherokee, and Cree
traditions and how they intersect with conventional medicine